Libertarian Troll Bingo!

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think carrying a child you are responsible for bringing into the world long enough that it can experience life outside the womb is extremely reasonable. Apparently a lot of other people don't. So I am not going to accept any argument based on a subjective judgment of what is "reasonable" - if no positive action can be required, then that is that - that includes putting a child up for adoption.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In a hypothetical AC child murder/abandonment scenario (say a 1-year-old so there's less gray about moral agency), do you think intervention/retribution is justified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to intervention and compensation, no to retribution since I am fundamentally opposed to retributory punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
Can a positive action on the part of the parents to care for children be required or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no, obviously you can't force a parent to take care of a child--but why would you want to? If a mother doesn't want the child, odds are she may not be the best fit for a parent.
But, yes, I think a parent can be "punished" for abandoning their child, in that they would owe compensation and face whatever social backlash comes from such actions.

Honestly, even if an air-tight argument were given for either allowing or denying abortions, there would be significant segments of the population that would vehemently disgagree. I feel like I probably say this in more than half of my posts, but one of the biggest merits of a decentralized society is that people who can (and inevitably will) disagree about what is 'reasonable' don't all have to live by the same rules.

That said, I don't think it is necessarily the case that what is 'reasonable' is automatically 'subjective in the sense that there is no correct answer as to 'what is reasonable'.

[ QUOTE ]
If it can, what is magically different about the scenario from 5 minutes before the baby is born to 5 minutes after?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, if we're talking about abortion, we're talking about many months before, not 5 minutes. And even if we were talking five minutes, there would still be the significant ordeal of birth (though I agree abortion would be far less justifiable in this scenario).

[ QUOTE ]
If positive action is required after birth, then I don't see how the use-of-the-mother's-body canard is relevant before birth - she clearly has to use her body in performing any positive action that may or may not be required for a 1-year-old.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but there is a significant difference in what kind of positive action is required from the parent. What is more, denying a woman the right to abortion forces her to undergo stuff during pregnancy she might not want to. There is far more that can be done post-birth; a woman doesn't really have to take care of the child, since a) someone else could, or b) she could abandon it and face the (hopefully dire) consequences.

[ QUOTE ]
since the trauma of carrying an unwanted child is sufficient to allow such means to be used. [ QUOTE ]
again, highly subjective

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's subjective, then shouldn't we rely on the woman's perspective for whether or not carrying the baby is too big a burden to bear?